> Thanks so much for all the hard work on the Spec! I'd like at least one
> more reviewer besides Ron to give a good read before we release it as a
> Last Call.
I'll volunteer to help review the spec. I'll try to focus on the
informative mechanical rules, as I have a concern that there isn't much
precedent in using rules to express the processing mechanics of a
specification as well as the informal dependencies on the vocabularies
used in the rules (the log:* properties in particular as well as
rdfsyn:*).
The appendix to the mechanical rules has @@explain TODO's
regarding the vocabularies which are not 'formal', and I think these need
to be very explicit about what the semantics of these terms are. The fact
that the rules rely on generating function symbols makes the underlying KR
quite expressive and perhaps not aligned with the target KR of the 'sanctioned'
semantic web rule language (RIF) - which is still a work in progress.
log:uri and log:includes in particular are quite cryptic in their formal
semantics - at least from what I know of what those terms are meant to
mean.
Though the rules are informative, they have the nice advantage that they
are 'complete' in the sense that proofs can be generated to determine
GRDDL compliance. The bar for the average GRDDL implementor becomes
significantly higher if they intend to interpret the rules in any formal
way, and I think at the very least we should be sure that the specificatin
is as clear as it can be (given the fact that we still don't have a
'sanctioned' SW rule language) about such an interpretation.
Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org